For me B7A2 is simply a too-good fighter with all performances except rolling, but if we are including all of sb2c to brigands then yes, they are doing things out of their role, and intercepting is made to be a better choice for them.
I don’t really have much idea rn… when we consider everything to brigand. ARB is almost a fighter only mode itself, and talking about bombers in the mode… idk
And those laughable dedicated interceptors, maybe even Air Defense Fighters. The mode never cared, the meta never cared…
Separate Strategic Bombing mode when.
Oh back to the issue, maybe these single engined ones can be put to striker spawn, but twin engined ones would be harder to deal with. T18 > brigand > Do217E who also has an offensive 151 > Those with 7mms. Where’s the line and what are the consequences?
As written above: As long the plane has a bomb sight and is able to level bomb there is no need to discuss their bomber spawn. The 2 T-18 Bs have a bomb sight even if they are specific ground attack versions.
But imho this exchange is pointless as gaijin spreads spawns and classifications at will and Air RB is no stand-alone mode - just consider that plane classes play also a role for the fellow ground RB players regarding the required spawn points.
Have a good one!
PS: 217 E?? Are you serious??? 😂😉It was one of the most difficult challenges for me to kill all 4 bases (with C 250/C 500) in one run AND to stay alive. And i never ever saw a Do 217 E hunting other bombers…
Jeez nobody is your enemy here - u play a war game.
Just try to take not everything as an insult. Brainpower in the sense of energy management is no insult. As soon as you get older you might get way more relaxed - being around 40 is still quite young…
If I am to descide I would increase rewards for Bombers/Attackers frag on ground/surface vehicle and bases while reducing Fighters’ for them; For the Fighters increase frag on air vehicles and reduce for frags to ground/surface target. That would require a redesign of current maps too. But maybe what Gaijin will do is only the reduce part.
I don’t have a problem with the energy management. You did not get the context of my original reply. You are not the intellectual powerhouse you put the air on of being. It’s getting obnoxious.
Based on offensive weapons,? They could be a similar thing (more brigand-ish less b7a2-ish) despite they are different in performance when talking about abused as interceptors? 3.7-4.7 is a compressed imba BR range so I won’t judge performance that much.
Yep just do BR changes. They even gave B7A2 the sight lol
ARB asks everyone act like a fighter and kill everyone on the other team if they aim to Win; Profiting is always on the opposite side due to the time-based profit system… really bad design
Also Strikers, Wyvern is the most prominent example. And this future thing even has some pro’s over regular fighters. Its very often abused with that airspawn.
Excluding B7A2 Homare 23 while mentioning Helldiver is wild.
Thanks to the superior Homare 23 engine, which produces more horsepower compared to the normal mass-produced B7A2, BP Ryusei has significant notoriousity compare to SB2C.
The solution to ALL planes of this type is to label them as Attackers and give them the requisite 1000m airspawn that limits their ability to wreak havoc.
A “Naval Bomber” is for all intents “an Attacker that hunts ships instead of infantry and vehicles.” A “Tactical Bomber” is merely “an Attacker using primarily bombs or rockets to hunt ground units and sometimes ships, which often also has front-mounted guns for strafing.”
This singlehandedly takes care of all problems of the B7A2s, Helldivers, Arado C-3, MB.175T, PV-2D, B-25s, or any other plane cut from the same cloth.
Sorry man, this is nonsense - especially when we talk about ww2 aircraft.
Naval (but we talk here just about carrier based aircraft) bombers are distinguishable by their purpose (Torpedo, Dive or level bombers) and (except for torpedo-bombers) not by the targets they attack. The carrier itself works as range extender. Naval bombers include also Beauforts or Ju 88s…
The difference between a tactical and strategic bomber is a question of penetration depth - and tactical bombers have nothing to do with specialized strike aircraft (attackers) which were designed to fly low (in order to spot infantry and ground vehicles) in contested or uncontested airspace with or without aaa defenses.
That some bombers had offensive armament was a result of their roles - naval torpedo bombers had offensive armament to suppress aaa fire - even land based bombers in an anti-ship role like the Fw 200 or the anti-submarine Liberators of the FAA had forward firing cannons for this purpose.
The only nation which strapped as many HMGs on twin or single engine bombers as possible was the US - but this was a result of suppressing aaa fire, numerical superiority and the US “more dakka” approach - and had nothing to do with their intended role as bombers. Lower altitude does improve accuracy, but the higher speed required to survive at low altitude often reduced accuracy again (especially with the bombsights and tactics of the era).
Just read the statements in this thread in order to understand why your proposal makes no sense.
There are no problems with the aircraft you mentioned - as the thread refers to dive bombers you should do some research about attack profiles of dive bombers.
I am in fact aware of how real attack profiles of dive bombers differed from how they’re typically used ingame. As am I aware about how sometimes very large bombers did anti-shipping duties.
I see this and other threads like this stating “bombers with frontal guns and decent or better flight performance are a problem because they abuse their airspawns to hunt fighters.” I remember the days when the R2Y2s had repair bills approaching 100k SL when those were classified as “jet bombers.”
Since Snail hasn’t really done anything to solve the mess other than once in a while nerf a specific plane, I simply thought about how to solve the goddamn problem now and forever.
What is more important to you - maintaining “historical accuracy” where convenient, even though both you and I know fully damn well Snail only cares about it when its convenient to them, or actually solving the goddamn problem of bombers abusing airspawns to hunt fighters?
Me? I’d rather solve the problem than endlessly circlejerk over details on specific planes, because the game they’re all stuck in doesn’t give those specific planes their real-world roles or jobs all that much.
What you (and the op) miss in your view is that basically every match in Air RB is a clear sign of the imbalance of Air RB - and it actually doesn’t matter if bomber or fighter players get killed by a B7A2, SB2C - or Mosquito NF Mk II (with a 2 km air spawn) or a plain Ki-44 or a plain 3-3 - 4.7 P- 38 .
So the issue is that your match result strongly depends on your ability to identify and deal with the most dangerous opponents before you run out of team mates in order to avoid “mine, mine” trains at your six.
Depending on map size and layout (air spawn for all or not) even a plain Yak-3 or Pyoerremski outclimbs any bomber or fighter in it’s BR range - forcing bomber or fighter players to play the long game in order to play around those aircraft in order to score - or in the best case to kill them in order to win.
Imho part of the problem is that the aircraft classifications (which determine the air spawn in Air RB) have also an often overlooked and way more decisive effect: They determine the required spawn points for the way more popular mode Ground RB.
From my pov there is no need to die to a dive bomber - their relative success is just a desired goal of gaijin - they “mow the lawn” regarding rookie bomber and fighter players and slow down the progress of their victims - and subsequently increase the demand for premium time and vehicles to overcome these obstacles.
Your first part nails it - your second part “to hunt fighters” is just a sign of the lack of skill of average fighter pilots.
It is basically the same why the last BR round discussions focused on A6Ms (and other turnfighters) which have objectively seen no chance to get in gun range of fighters at way lower BRs - but still score way more than they should score simply because as the skill floor to use them is lower when 2 average pilots meet each other and one of them is a turnfighter.
So the whole thread deals with player skill on average - that’s why experienced fighter players never get killed by a SB2C or B7A2. That’s why i wrote there is no problem.
Note - my original replay was not from my own experience being killed constantly by various bombers trying to be Ersatz Fighters - it’s of me being intelligent enough to spot them coming but the average team not being such. Then I get swarmed because too many of my teammates end up dropping like flies to a simple Helldiver, for example.
I also wrote said opinion from years back when I was spading these particular planes. Was it funny to kill 5+ fighters in a slow dive bomber, as I did with the Helldiver once? Yes. Was it remotely balanced nor fair? Frankly no.
I plainly recognize that allowing almost any plane with significantly good maneuverability and forward firepower to spawn up high will result in people abusing it to hunt climbing fighters. Thus instead of playing whack-a-mole with specific “problem” planes forever, address the class of planes in general and be done with it for good. Setting all Naval Bombers and Tactical Bombers to the Attacker Airspawn would permanently fix the problem.
One problem at a time, man. All I can say to the other cases you specify here is that only when the objectives people are doing change sufficiently, as do the win conditions and preferably also the red marker mechanics, will we hope to see changes on those fronts.
My response was purely targeted at the longstanding airspawn abuse of any and all bombers with fixed forward guns and at least decent flight performance.
Not sure if you have noticed that wt Air RB is a almost perfectly crafted money grab for rookies - and the issues you address are no “stand-alone” challenges, they are all connected.
Example:
If i take this quote:
You would simply kill the sole grinding tool for “not so” passionate players which play Air RB just for the sake of getting aircraft for their real passion called Ground RB.
From a pure game play perspective you make it impossible for them to score - simply because we have a 4 bomber limit, but no strike aircraft number limit. Evading this by using a strategic bomber is a no-brainer as their survival /drop rates are even lower.
Besides that: Gaijin earns money with premium bombers of all kinds - and they are actually just there to play more or less ez targets for fighter players unable to kill enemy fighters.
If i would use the same logic in your general view on things there would also be a need to deny any player to strap max payload on his fighter - competing with tactical / strategic bombers for bases, despite the fact that their initial role is to fight enemy aircraft.
From a holistic pov Air RB would have needed years ago drastic changes to keep the former crown jewel game mode viable. But gaijin just adopted to the needs of their gazillions of new customers to spend money - turning Air RB into a pure grinding tool was the logical result - and created this mess.